Hammer Creek, Lancaster/Lebanon Cos., 9/23-27/13

Thanks Swattie, always good to know or have an idea of the flows before you drive for an hour.

I don't know why the conservancy would prohibit fishing, they allow it in their other properties - Trout Run for example.

If you also look at their rules and regs it does NOT say fish only where permitted like it does with hunting.

Part of their mission statement is to conserve land and provide recreational opportunities.

 
The_Sasquatch wrote:
You know, I'm tired of this debate. I'm going to email the conservancy. I don't give a crap what their website says, to be honest with you. If they don't want fishing, they have to post it. PA is a right to use state, which means if they don't want people in the stream on their land, they have to make it known. Posting a sentence on their website is hardly making it known. Kind of like "Hitchhiker's Guide" where they say it was clearly posted that Earth was scheduled for destruction. I'm not convinced they don't want to allow fishing. Otherwise, why would they post it for hunting but not fishing?

I'll let you guys know what I find out from the conservancy. I'm not mad or anything, but I think it's time someone goes right to the horse's mouth. Like I said, it gets pounded with bait guys in the early season. I can't imagine the conservancy is ignorant to that fact.
Click to expand...

I emailed them last year, more out of curiousity why fishing was prohibited on certain properties (donor deed restrictions?). Never got a response. All I gained was getting added to their email spam list, including several messages from someone who did not know how to use Bcc or email list manegement software.

My question to you was somewhat rhetorical, but if everyone is doing it, it's not posted clearly but their website says it's closed to fishing, the law may be on our side but is it ethical to fish it?
 
geebee wrote:
Thanks Swattie, always good to know or have an idea of the flows before you drive for an hour.

I don't know why the conservancy would prohibit fishing, they allow it in their other properties - Trout Run for example.

If you also look at their rules and regs it does NOT say fish only where permitted like it does with hunting.

Part of their mission statement is to conserve land and provide recreational opportunities.
Click to expand...

Your idea of recreational opportunities and someone else's idea may differ. Someone donating land may consider fishing offensive, for instance. I hope Squatch gets a definitive response.

Keep in mind that while most Conservancy lands are open for public use, they are still a private landowner and have the right to set the rules for use of their land.
 
salmonoid wrote:
The_Sasquatch wrote:
You know, I'm tired of this debate. I'm going to email the conservancy. I don't give a crap what their website says, to be honest with you. If they don't want fishing, they have to post it. PA is a right to use state, which means if they don't want people in the stream on their land, they have to make it known. Posting a sentence on their website is hardly making it known. Kind of like "Hitchhiker's Guide" where they say it was clearly posted that Earth was scheduled for destruction. I'm not convinced they don't want to allow fishing. Otherwise, why would they post it for hunting but not fishing?

I'll let you guys know what I find out from the conservancy. I'm not mad or anything, but I think it's time someone goes right to the horse's mouth. Like I said, it gets pounded with bait guys in the early season. I can't imagine the conservancy is ignorant to that fact.
Click to expand...

I emailed them last year, more out of curiousity why fishing was prohibited on certain properties (donor deed restrictions?). Never got a response. All I gained was getting added to their email spam list, including several messages from someone who did not know how to use Bcc or email list manegement software.

My question to you was somewhat rhetorical, but if everyone is doing it, it's not posted clearly but their website says it's closed to fishing, the law may be on our side but is it ethical to fish it?
Click to expand...

Yeah I get what you're saying. Hopefully I get a response back and we get clarification 100% one way or another. I'm basically just thinking there's a contradiction between what's on the website and what is happening streamside. So either they're making a mistake with what is posted on the web, or they're making a mistake with what is (not) posted along the stream. Either way, for their sake, they need to clear it up you know? How many people are going to their website to find this info out?
 

It's very clear in the website:

Land Management

This property is closed to hunting and fishing.


Link to source: http://www.lancasterconservancy.org/preserve/upper-hopewell-nature-preserve/

I don't believe it's either ethical or legal to fish there.

The owner(s) of any property have the right to exclude or limit recreational or any type of use of their property.

 
I’ve fished below the 322 bridge on Hammer before, but based on the Conservancy website, I won’t be any more. It’s definitely not posted against fishing at the location streamside, but once you have direct, legitimate notice from the landowner (regardless of the source), you have notice. I now have notice.
 
Like I said, either the streamside posting is wrong, or the info on the website is wrong, so they need to correct something. It's not the best stretch of the stream by any means, so it's no huge loss if I can't fish it. But like I said, who's going to the conservancy website to find this info out? The dozens of bait fishermen in April aren't.
 
Jack - Yeah, I guess. But there’s plenty of other streams, and still a nice SGL stretch of Hammer that is open to fishing. I typically struggle on Hammer anyway, as I do on most limestoners.

Squatch – I agree with ya, but the landowner has informed us of their intent. I’ll abide by it until they inform me otherwise. All we can do is hope the fishing gods serve the baiters a sizeable portion of skunk for not respecting the landowner's wishes.
 
Yup...sux.

The Conservancy should really post signs stating "No Hunting or Fishing" if that is their policy for that property. If they don't, they really shouldn't complain if anglers assume it is open to fishing.


 
Swattie87 wrote:
Squatch – I agree with ya, but the landowner has informed us of their intent. I’ll abide by it until they inform me otherwise. All we can do is hope the fishing gods serve the baiters a sizeable portion of skunk for not respecting the landowner's wishes.
Click to expand...

Word. I'll let you guys know what (or if) I hear anything back. If I don't get an email, I'll call (dread! I hate using the phone!)

It's in their best interest to post the land properly anyway. You've been down that stretch. I can tell you, I could fill a tackle box of Panther Martins, Dare Devils, and bait hooks just from fishing the stretch in June after the "trout season" beatings reside.
 
I would suggest if they give you permission to fish it that you make sure they would want that publicized here or elsewhere. They may not want to have their stated policy contradicted.
 
I'll ask around, too. I know a board member so I can dig and see. I suspect they have listed it as closed to fishing because there is a very rare plant that grows there on the stream banks and in the swampy areas. That said, it should be properly posted, and as Squatch points out, its full of stuff from bait fishers.

Jeff
 
I had no idea about the plant! That is very interesting. It seems that allowing hiking would be just as much a threat to the plant, though.
 
looking at their site, they say that no hiking is possible as there are no trails and the only way to walk it in summer is in the creek.

i'm guessing they don't want people to create trails
 
There are trails that go down from the parking area to the actual stream, but no, there are no trails that run parallel to the stream.

I'm curious about this plant, though!
 
Maybe just fish it and don't ask for any trouble...I wouldn't inquire if I was you.
 
foxtrapper1972 wrote:
Maybe just fish it and don't ask for any trouble...I wouldn't inquire if I was you.
Click to expand...

If you do, and you've read this thread or read the Conservancy's website, you're knowingly trespassing, which is worse than doing so unknowingly IMO.

I had a landowner on an unposted section of stream ask me to leave last year. Ironically, I was fishing with Squatch that day. I thought about engaging in a debate about her posting her land if that was her intent, however she had informed us she didn't want us there, and now we knew, so we just left. Haven't been back since obviously. I didn't even know there was a house on this stretch until she came up on us. The house was obscured by a bunch of trees.

I'm with Squatch. Let the Conservancy say one way or the other. I have to imagine it is their intent for it not to be fished if that's what the website says. If that's what they confirm, it may be worth just giving them a heads up about the crowds in April...perhaps they can arrange for some enforcement.
 
Enforcement, or just better signage. The signs themselves may work, you know? At least for most people, and for the ones who ignore them, hey. They can't claim ignorance.

I'm not asking for trouble. Like I said, I have enough of that water to fish. That stretch isn't the shining example of beautiful trout water (though it does have some deep holding waters!) I can live w/out ever fishing it. I just want to know 100% either way!
 
At least we will all know who to thank if the signs go up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages

Share this page

Back
Top